UnifyBench

Weighted consensus · Public benchmarks

LLM leaderboard

Compare AI models across public benchmarks. Source-balanced consensus for overall performance, coding, reasoning and agentic work.

Looking for which LLM is best? UnifyBench is a first stop: source-balanced consensus across many published benchmarks (not one board). Shortlist here, then validate on Artificial Analysis, check Arena for preference, and finish with task-specific evals.

See the full ranking

Core work leaders

Comparison score · 0–100

Experimental scores for the selected profile and sources. Small gaps may not be meaningful. How scoring works · Effort evidence collected

This month: three boards to compare

Which LLM is best in October 2026?

The dated checks below show different measures of performance: GPT-6 Astra · XHigh leads UnifyBench; Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) leads Artificial Analysis; Gemini 4 Argon · High is Arena's last known leader. Shortlist with UnifyBench, check Artificial Analysis for independent scores and cost per task, check Arena for preferences, then test your own tasks.

  • UnifyBenchGPT-6 Astra · XHigh95.9Overall · benchmark consensus · 0–100
  • Artificial AnalysisClaude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)58Intelligence Index · independent suite
  • ArenaGemini 4 Argon · High1525 ± 9Text Overall Elo · human preferenceLast known leaderPreliminary

The Intelligence Index, Arena Elo, and UnifyBench score use different scales and cannot be compared directly. UnifyBench balances many published benchmarks rather than blending a few board ranks. Why leaderboards disagree.

Source dates and refresh details

UnifyBench
Evidence published 22 Oct 2026
Default weights · documented evidence · highest-scoring effort

Artificial Analysis
Checked 28 Oct 2026 · Source update date unavailable
#1

Arena
Checked 7 Oct 2026 · Board updated 2 Oct 2026
#1 · Preliminary · Stale check · Refresh failed 28 Oct 2026; last good check retained

471unique models568model configurations134source pages
Explore all 134 source pages Independent evaluations and lab reports

Each model is counted once across effort levels. Configurations count documented model + effort settings, including unranked.

Original reports and benchmark leaderboards. Distinct source pages with published results in the catalog. Multiple results and page sections count as one source.

One entry per model, using its highest-scoring eligible effort setting. How effort ranking works.

Customize ranking Sources, profiles and evidence details · Including unranked entries
All presets

Evidence only MultimodalLong contextHuman prefAll capabilitiesThese profiles do not yet have enough comparable evidence for a ranking.

Adjust weights

Full ranking

471 entries
Compare two configurations

Custom capability ranking of measured model configurations. Scores are experimental; missing results remain unknown.
RankModelScoreCapability coverage
1GPT-6 Astra · XHighOpenAI87.5Eligible · 100%18 families · 3 selected capabilities
2Claude Opus 5.5 · HighAnthropic84.4Eligible · 100%10 families · 3 selected capabilities
3Gemini 4 Argon · HighGoogle83.3Eligible · 100%19 families · 3 selected capabilities
4Claude Fable 5.1 · MaxAnthropic83.1Eligible · 100%30 families · 3 selected capabilities
5Muse Wonder Full · MaxMeta80.0Eligible · 100%14 families · 3 selected capabilities
6GPT-6.1 Sol · HighOpenAI79.5Eligible · 100%13 families · 3 selected capabilities
7GPT-5.6 Sol · MaxOpenAI75.4Eligible · 100%36 families · 3 selected capabilities
8Muse Wonder · MaxMeta74.4Eligible · 100%19 families · 3 selected capabilities
9Claude Sonnet 5.5 · MaxAnthropic73.4Eligible · 100%22 families · 3 selected capabilities
10Claude Opus 5 · HighAnthropic73.1Eligible · 100%14 families · 3 selected capabilities
11Claude Fable 5 · MaxAnthropic70.9Eligible · 100%29 families · 3 selected capabilities
12Muse Spark 1.3 · XHighMeta69.4Eligible · 100%22 families · 3 selected capabilities
13GPT-6 Sol · MaxOpenAI66.3Eligible · 100%30 families · 3 selected capabilities
14Kimi K3 · MaxMoonshot65.2Eligible · 100%30 families · 3 selected capabilities
15Gemini 3.8 Flash · MediumGoogle64.5Eligible · 100%13 families · 3 selected capabilities
16Grok 4.6 · XHighxAI64.2Eligible · 100%15 families · 3 selected capabilities

More models on this page

Behind the ranking

294 entries with published results · 88 ranked · 0 provisional estimates.

Explore seven capabilities, the original results, and gaps in the evidence.

Coding rankingReasoning rankingAgentic rankingKnowledge rankingCompare capabilities ↗Published benchmarks ↗Evidence coverage ↗
Cite this ranking

Include the model and effort setting, the selected profile, and the dated data downloads. A shared link uses the latest data; it does not freeze a ranking in time.

UnifyBench ranking
Data updated: 22 Oct 2026
Mode: custom; evidence: documented; configurations: best
Weights: v3;agentic:34,hard_reasoning:33,coding:33,human_pref:0,knowledge:0,multimodal:0,long_context:0
https://unifybench.ai/?evidence=documented&mode=custom&w=v3

Catalog data · Effort measurements · Configuration scoring rules · Methodology

Catalog dated 22 Oct 2026. Effort evidence collected 18 Oct 2026. Collection dates are not evaluation dates.

What does the score mean?

The adjusted comparison score estimates performance against the same reference panel from matched published comparisons. Capability pools matched comparisons across families and checks aggregate breadth and independent source coverage. Custom profiles require support in every selected capability. Missing results never count as losses.

Family details show observed win shares against available reference peers. Those descriptive values are supporting evidence, not adjusted capability scores. Provider reports and independent results remain labeled. Matching reported settings do not establish equal inference effort, and score differences do not establish statistical significance.

Read the full methodology →